Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Confirmation hearing for Elena Kagan

Posts

Lazegamer: If obama was respectful of the role of the judiciary he would punch scalia in the nuts and appoint someone about as left as Stevens. Stevens while pretty far left for SCOTUS was still not a raving tree hugging liberal by any means.

I disagree. There is room for discussion over how you interpret law (living, strict, intent, etc.), but choosing someone because of their opinion on what the law should be is shameful partisanship. Trying to 'correct the balance' of the court by appointing someone who will cancel out a partisan schill with their own douchebaggery is no more a long term solution than vigilantism to solving crime.

I disagree. There is room for discussion over how you interpret law (living, strict, intent, etc.), but choosing someone because of their opinion on what the law should be is shameful partisanship. Trying to 'correct the balance' of the court by appointing someone who will cancel out a partisan schill with their own douchebaggery is no more a long term solution than vigilantism to solving crime.

You are assuming that there are two equally hack-ish partisan wings and then one intellectually competent center. If that were the case, then of course picking a hack would be the wrong thing to do. But I do not think that is the case. I advocate for the selection of leftward justices because I think that they are, in fact, intellectually competent, and moreso than the centrists. Sandra Day and Kennedy were not the great intellectual centers of the court; their centrism translated essentially into ruling however they felt like on a given occasion. That is not, I do not believe, great jurorship, nor is the mostly-consistent-but-terrible judicial philosophy of Scalia or Thomas.

This court needs another Stevens (flag burning aside) not because Stevens was a reliable hack who happened to rule the right way, but because Stevens was a good justice.

Lazegamer: If obama was respectful of the role of the judiciary he would punch scalia in the nuts and appoint someone about as left as Stevens. Stevens while pretty far left for SCOTUS was still not a raving tree hugging liberal by any means.

I disagree. There is room for discussion over how you interpret law (living, strict, intent, etc.), but choosing someone because of their opinion on what the law should be is shameful partisanship. Trying to 'correct the balance' of the court by appointing someone who will cancel out a partisan schill with their own douchebaggery is no more a long term solution than vigilantism to solving crime.

There would be room for discussion over methods of interpretation if people and justices were intellectually honest about it. The people and justices that like strict interpretation completely ignore the historical context of the 2nd amendment and so on and so forth. I think method of interpretation is just about as partisan as selecting someone based on voting record.

I disagree. There is room for discussion over how you interpret law (living, strict, intent, etc.), but choosing someone because of their opinion on what the law should be is shameful partisanship. Trying to 'correct the balance' of the court by appointing someone who will cancel out a partisan schill with their own douchebaggery is no more a long term solution than vigilantism to solving crime.

You are assuming that there are two equally hack-ish partisan wings and then one intellectually competent center. If that were the case, then of course picking a hack would be the wrong thing to do. But I do not think that is the case.

That is not my assumption. Even if the court were composed entirely of political right hacks I would not support selecting a judge based on their political preferences. It isn't the judiciaries responsibility to make good legislation, it is to fairly and accurately interpret that legislation and how it is applied.

I advocate for the selection of leftward justices because I think that they are, in fact, intellectually competent, and moreso than the centrists. Sandra Day and Kennedy were not the great intellectual centers of the court; their centrism translated essentially into ruling however they felt like on a given occasion. That is not, I do not believe, great jurorship, nor is the mostly-consistent-but-terrible judicial philosophy of Scalia or Thomas.

Perhaps I am misreading your comment, but it seems to me that you are correlating intellectualism with having a left of center outlook on policy, which would be an absurd generalization if true.

Left, center, right, it's all an attempt to influence the laws of the lands without having to go through that pesky legislative branch.

I advocate for the selection of leftward justices because I think that they are, in fact, intellectually competent, and moreso than the centrists. Sandra Day and Kennedy were not the great intellectual centers of the court; their centrism translated essentially into ruling however they felt like on a given occasion. That is not, I do not believe, great jurorship, nor is the mostly-consistent-but-terrible judicial philosophy of Scalia or Thomas.

Perhaps I am misreading your comment, but it seems to me that you are correlating intellectualism with having a left of center outlook on policy, which would be an absurd generalization if true.

Left, center, right, it's all an attempt to influence the laws of the lands without having to go through that pesky legislative branch.

Alito in this case states that removing government funding from a religious group that discriminates is hurting freedom of speech. This has nothing to do with free speech and removing funding based off the Establishment and Equal protection clauses does not constitute any sort of chilling effect. His argument is complete and utter bullshit. This is the type of stuff MrMister is talking about.

Edit: They are also for privacy except when people do it in the butt. They are for states rights except when it goes against their ideals. Etc.

I disagree. There is room for discussion over how you interpret law (living, strict, intent, etc.), but choosing someone because of their opinion on what the law should be is shameful partisanship. Trying to 'correct the balance' of the court by appointing someone who will cancel out a partisan schill with their own douchebaggery is no more a long term solution than vigilantism to solving crime.

You are assuming that there are two equally hack-ish partisan wings and then one intellectually competent center. If that were the case, then of course picking a hack would be the wrong thing to do. But I do not think that is the case.

That is not my assumption. Even if the court were composed entirely of political right hacks I would not support selecting a judge based on their political preferences. It isn't the judiciaries responsibility to make good legislation, it is to fairly and accurately interpret that legislation and how it is applied.

I advocate for the selection of leftward justices because I think that they are, in fact, intellectually competent, and moreso than the centrists. Sandra Day and Kennedy were not the great intellectual centers of the court; their centrism translated essentially into ruling however they felt like on a given occasion. That is not, I do not believe, great jurorship, nor is the mostly-consistent-but-terrible judicial philosophy of Scalia or Thomas.

Perhaps I am misreading your comment, but it seems to me that you are correlating intellectualism with having a left of center outlook on policy, which would be an absurd generalization if true.

Left, center, right, it's all an attempt to influence the laws of the lands without having to go through that pesky legislative branch.

Okay, so you know nothing about law, common law, checks and balances, the role of the judiciary, and the constitution.

Really, the big pattern of the supreme court over the past decade is that liberal dissents are about how nonsensical their given rulings are while conservative dissents are all about how much they dislike the ruling.

Really, for all the whining about liberal activist judges, this current court has been doing rediculously oppressive pro-corporatist rulings this past couple years that people really should be alarmed about.

Really, for all the whining about liberal activist judges, this current court has been doing rediculously oppressive pro-corporatist rulings this past couple years that people really should be alarmed about.

I really have to wonder what kind of person goes to law school with the intention of strengthening the power of multinational corporations in America.

Really, for all the whining about liberal activist judges, this current court has been doing rediculously oppressive pro-corporatist rulings this past couple years that people really should be alarmed about.

I really have to wonder what kind of person goes to law school with the intention of strengthening the power of multinational corporations in America.

Really, for all the whining about liberal activist judges, this current court has been doing rediculously oppressive pro-corporatist rulings this past couple years that people really should be alarmed about.

I really have to wonder what kind of person goes to law school with the intention of strengthening the power of multinational corporations in America.

They don't. They go to law school to get a high paying job. Which happens to involve strengthening the power of multinational corporations.

Anyway, in good news Kagan praised Justice Marshall kind of a lot today, which is causing the Republicans conniptions and they HATE him (why is left as an exercise for the reader).

Yeah, judiciary experience is actually not that necessary. I honestly would like to see a justice NOT from Harvard or Yale more than a non-judge, though.

I'm not digging the Kagan pick. She's between Stevens & Scalia, which means she's pretty solidly to the right. Her stance on executive power is troubling, as is her unflinching support of the Clinton era (Bush may have been an incompetent bully, but it was Clinton's triangulations that really began shifting America as a whole to the right).

It's better than whatever lunacy would've come from McCain, though, so I guess I'm supposed to be satisfied with that? :/

...Reagan shifted America to the right, not Clinton. Clinton didn't do much to counter the move, but let's be real here.

Reagan shifted 'centrists' to the right and was a ham-fisted confirmation vehicle for right wing ideology. Clinton, on the other hand, bullshitted people on the left into believing that he was 'liberal leaning' and used the political capital he sapped from them to promote mostly right wing policy. A lot of people on the left chose to double down rather than admit that they'd been taken for a ride, moving into the right because 'hey, you've got to make some comprises', and everyone who remained on the left was suddenly identified as 'fringe', 'stubborn', etc. It was only after Clinton that Liberal became a bad, bad word in the United States.

In any case, I don't have a lot of confidence in any judge who blindly backs a rapist & war criminal.

Liberal was a bad word long before that to the lunatic fringe (and thus, the media). Clinton ran the way he did because liberal was a bad word. Political history isn't a difficult thing to understand, especially when cause and effect is pretty fucking obvious. Reagan was the transformative presidency, as the current President said in the primary.

Liberal was a bad word long before that to the lunatic fringe (and thus, the media). Clinton ran the way he did because liberal was a bad word. Political history isn't a difficult thing to understand, especially when cause and effect is pretty fucking obvious. Reagan was the transformative presidency, as the current President said in the primary.

I think the way Clinton ran had a lot more to do with knowing that a lot of his voters were Christians rather than knowing that liberal was becoming an untenable position. He had a chance to salvage the left wing and he chose to abandon it.

I don't disagree that liberalism was always demonized, but even under Reagan you still had prominent left-wing flower power groups (or the remnants of them, anyway) and idolized left wing figures like Carl Sagan. By the time Clinton was done, there was no left wing movement or labor movement or socialist movement of any kind in America. All that was left was a fractured, shrunken community of disillusioned idealists.

You can go a lot farther back than clinton for that. Really back into the 70s after the 60s blew up and most of america said to hell with that I'm voting reagan. After 69 there wasn't much left of the SDS worthy of respect. in a lot of ways there wasn't much of it in the 60s either since they had a lot of backassward ways.

I don't like her as a choice for the Supreme Court. I know she has law school education and is a professor, but from what I've read she has 0 experience actually sitting behind the bench. Something about that is just...no thanks.

Her resume is light on legal experience period.

And no, being a professor doesn't count as "legal experience" it counts as "time spent studying law" which is also very important but not precisely the same thing (though I will admit that law is one profession where merely studying it does come pretty close to practicing it).

I don't like her as a choice for the Supreme Court. I know she has law school education and is a professor, but from what I've read she has 0 experience actually sitting behind the bench. Something about that is just...no thanks.

Her resume is light on legal experience period.

And no, being a professor doesn't count as "legal experience" it counts as "time spent studying law" which is also very important but not precisely the same thing (though I will admit that law is one profession where merely studying it does come pretty close to practicing it).

I don't understand this particular objection (though, as already stated, I don't like her nomination anyway).

What benefits do you see coming from past experience actually commanding a courtroom (I mean, aside from the fact that you then have a record of how she tends to make decisions)? Like you said, studying & practicing law are extremely similar, and she has written a few legal opinions (which is what she'll be mostly doing on the Supreme Court), even if I personally find them to be mostly questionable.

Liberal was a bad word long before that to the lunatic fringe (and thus, the media). Clinton ran the way he did because liberal was a bad word. Political history isn't a difficult thing to understand, especially when cause and effect is pretty fucking obvious. Reagan was the transformative presidency, as the current President said in the primary.

I think the way Clinton ran had a lot more to do with knowing that a lot of his voters were Christians rather than knowing that liberal was becoming an untenable position. He had a chance to salvage the left wing and he chose to abandon it.

I don't disagree that liberalism was always demonized, but even under Reagan you still had prominent left-wing flower power groups (or the remnants of them, anyway) and idolized left wing figures like Carl Sagan. By the time Clinton was done, there was no left wing movement or labor movement or socialist movement of any kind in America. All that was left was a fractured, shrunken community of disillusioned idealists.

Liberalism earned a bad name back in Vietnam. That conflict still defines the American Political landscape.

Reagan got the whole country buying into the right-wing. Clinton simply reacted to this. He and the remains of his ilk in the Democratic party are those that believe the only way to win is to move rightward. I have serious doubts that Clinton ever had a chance to "salvage" the left wing.

Yeah, the supreme court is distinct enough from a trial court (or a lower appellate court, really) that I don't really need the necessity of a federal judgeship as experience.

That has been a nice piece of sloganeering because presidents like nominating federal judges that have scrutinize-able records, but it's not really a predictor of ability as a justice. Some of the best justices haven't been judges, or didn't spend much time on the bench.

so next time you see recruiters in your school or your crib
tell'em thank you for the offer, but you'd rather you live

I disagree. There is room for discussion over how you interpret law (living, strict, intent, etc.), but choosing someone because of their opinion on what the law should be is shameful partisanship. Trying to 'correct the balance' of the court by appointing someone who will cancel out a partisan schill with their own douchebaggery is no more a long term solution than vigilantism to solving crime.

You are assuming that there are two equally hack-ish partisan wings and then one intellectually competent center. If that were the case, then of course picking a hack would be the wrong thing to do. But I do not think that is the case.

That is not my assumption. Even if the court were composed entirely of political right hacks I would not support selecting a judge based on their political preferences. It isn't the judiciaries responsibility to make good legislation, it is to fairly and accurately interpret that legislation and how it is applied.

I advocate for the selection of leftward justices because I think that they are, in fact, intellectually competent, and moreso than the centrists. Sandra Day and Kennedy were not the great intellectual centers of the court; their centrism translated essentially into ruling however they felt like on a given occasion. That is not, I do not believe, great jurorship, nor is the mostly-consistent-but-terrible judicial philosophy of Scalia or Thomas.

Perhaps I am misreading your comment, but it seems to me that you are correlating intellectualism with having a left of center outlook on policy, which would be an absurd generalization if true.

Left, center, right, it's all an attempt to influence the laws of the lands without having to go through that pesky legislative branch.

I love this attitude. It sounds wonderful to say that the court should be this ivory tower where points of law are debated in a vacuum, but that just isn't how the court operates and it never has been, all the way back to Marshall. The court makes policy decisions, whether it chooses to cloak them in constitutional law or not, and that makes it a political body.

so next time you see recruiters in your school or your crib
tell'em thank you for the offer, but you'd rather you live

I disagree. There is room for discussion over how you interpret law (living, strict, intent, etc.), but choosing someone because of their opinion on what the law should be is shameful partisanship. Trying to 'correct the balance' of the court by appointing someone who will cancel out a partisan schill with their own douchebaggery is no more a long term solution than vigilantism to solving crime.

You are assuming that there are two equally hack-ish partisan wings and then one intellectually competent center. If that were the case, then of course picking a hack would be the wrong thing to do. But I do not think that is the case.

That is not my assumption. Even if the court were composed entirely of political right hacks I would not support selecting a judge based on their political preferences. It isn't the judiciaries responsibility to make good legislation, it is to fairly and accurately interpret that legislation and how it is applied.

I advocate for the selection of leftward justices because I think that they are, in fact, intellectually competent, and moreso than the centrists. Sandra Day and Kennedy were not the great intellectual centers of the court; their centrism translated essentially into ruling however they felt like on a given occasion. That is not, I do not believe, great jurorship, nor is the mostly-consistent-but-terrible judicial philosophy of Scalia or Thomas.

Perhaps I am misreading your comment, but it seems to me that you are correlating intellectualism with having a left of center outlook on policy, which would be an absurd generalization if true.

Left, center, right, it's all an attempt to influence the laws of the lands without having to go through that pesky legislative branch.

I love this attitude. It sounds wonderful to say that the court should be this ivory tower where points of law are debated in a vacuum, but that just isn't how the court operates and it never has been, all the way back to Marshall. The court makes policy decisions, whether it chooses to cloak them in constitutional law or not, and that makes it a political body.

It's a political body by definition, but it's not ivory tower idealism to expect that their appointment and their execution is not partisan any more than it is to expect our policemen to enforce laws they don't agree with. If you set low expectations then you will usually get them.

It's a political body by definition, but it's not ivory tower idealism to expect that their appointment and their execution is not partisan any more than it is to expect our elections to not be corrupt. If you set low expectations then you will usually get them.

I think it's extremely naive to ever expect a Supreme Court justice to rule against policy preference when the rules of the game are "the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means."

It's a political body by definition, but it's not ivory tower idealism to expect that their appointment and their execution is not partisan any more than it is to expect our elections to not be corrupt. If you set low expectations then you will usually get them.

I think it's extremely naive to ever expect a Supreme Court justice to rule against policy preference when the rules of the game are "the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means."

I think the objection is to that second part, as I understand it. It's more rage against something that will never change, but I understand the desire in a perfect world for the Supreme Court to just be the rules lawyers of the group, who sit down and run through the books to determine who really won initiative and how across all the addendum being used this game. And occasionally cry foul when two directly conflict, or any conflict with the constitution's ground rules.

In reality though, it's a political body that's pretty much the embodiment of the idea behind activist judge complaining. Namely that they're the only activist judges who can't be overruled, and the game is to stack the deck as best as you can with your ideology's judges.

I do find it amusing how many people change their minds over the years when hearing the actual cases though. It seems as though putting a liberal or conservative on the bench doesn't mean you'll have a liberal or conservative seat in 10 years.

Or, you could put Thomas on the bench, and watch him ask "dishwashers!? how the fuck do they work!?" while wearing clown makeup.

It's a political body by definition, but it's not ivory tower idealism to expect that their appointment and their execution is not partisan any more than it is to expect our elections to not be corrupt. If you set low expectations then you will usually get them.

I think it's extremely naive to ever expect a Supreme Court justice to rule against policy preference when the rules of the game are "the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means."

I think the objection is to that second part, as I understand it. It's more rage against something that will never change, but I understand the desire in a perfect world for the Supreme Court to just be the rules lawyers of the group, who sit down and run through the books to determine who really won initiative and how across all the addendum being used this game. And occasionally cry foul when two directly conflict, or any conflict with the constitution's ground rules.

I think that he people who pine for this kind of situation haven't actually read the constitution. The thing is extremely far from clear.

As has been alluded to, the problem with Obama trying to be moderate here is Republican presidents never are. A natural result of this is the court constantly sliding right and becoming more partisan. Obama tries to drive straight, GOP oversteers way right, result: court goes right.

The /deeper/ problem is I don't see what he can do about it. Democratic congressmen will cheerfully vote for any but the most idiotic pick the GOP puts up; the GOP, in turn, will only vote for someone as far right as they can convince the Democrats to offer (and sometimes not then). If Obama had put up someone actually liberal, let alone progressive, they'd never get confirmed.

What I see this whole hyper partisan confirmation thing doing is masking any appointee's actual beliefs or ideals, though. Because the only way to get through the confirmation is to pretty much be boring and not answer questions in any meaningful way. You're essentially trying to bluff one side or the other.

As has been alluded to, the problem with Obama trying to be moderate here is Republican presidents never are. A natural result of this is the court constantly sliding right and becoming more partisan. Obama tries to drive straight, GOP oversteers way right, result: court goes right.

The /deeper/ problem is I don't see what he can do about it. Democratic congressmen will cheerfully vote for any but the most idiotic pick the GOP puts up; the GOP, in turn, will only vote for someone as far right as they can convince the Democrats to offer (and sometimes not then). If Obama had put up someone actually liberal, let alone progressive, they'd never get confirmed.

It'd be nice if Democrats would play hardball like Republicans do. Filibuster the shit out of their nominees in the future if they do the same with yours. I fully expect Democrats to be just as obstinate about presidential nominees whenever we get another republican president. Playing fair is retarded when the other side isn't and the public isn't rewarding you for it.

As has been alluded to, the problem with Obama trying to be moderate here is Republican presidents never are. A natural result of this is the court constantly sliding right and becoming more partisan. Obama tries to drive straight, GOP oversteers way right, result: court goes right.

The /deeper/ problem is I don't see what he can do about it. Democratic congressmen will cheerfully vote for any but the most idiotic pick the GOP puts up; the GOP, in turn, will only vote for someone as far right as they can convince the Democrats to offer (and sometimes not then). If Obama had put up someone actually liberal, let alone progressive, they'd never get confirmed.

It'd be nice if Democrats would play hardball like Republicans do. Filibuster the shit out of their nominees in the future if they do the same with yours. I fully expect Democrats to be just as obstinate about presidential nominees whenever we get another republican president. Playing fair is retarded when the other side isn't and the public isn't rewarding you for it.

The assumption there is that the public isn't rewarding you for it. Polling is an imperfect science, but is there any suggestion about how much influence it has on presidential selection?

Anecdotal, but I voted for Obama in large part because of how he campaigned for pragmatic reasonable solutions. How much of the backlash against the Republican party was because of Rove and their realpolitik nature over the past decade?

The assumption there is that the public isn't rewarding you for it. Polling is an imperfect science, but is there any suggestion about how much influence it has on presidential selection?

Anecdotal, but I voted for Obama in large part because of how he campaigned for pragmatic reasonable solutions. How much of the backlash against the Republican party was because of Rove and their realpolitik nature over the past decade?